Kyoto Protocol architect 'frustrated' by climate dialogue

May 23, 2012 by Anthony Lucas and Mariette le Roux
Raul Estrada taps his gavel to pass the Kyoto climate change protocols in 1997. UN climate talks are going nowhere, as politicians dither or bicker while the pace of warming dangerously speeds up, Estrada, one of the architects of the Kyoto Protocol has told AFP.

UN climate talks are going nowhere, as politicians dither or bicker while the pace of warming dangerously speeds up, one of the architects of the Kyoto Protocol told AFP.

"It seems to me that negotiations are returning to square one," said Raul Estrada, the "father" of the world's only treaty to specify curbs in , as the first talks for a new took place in Bonn.

In a telephone interview from Buenos Aires this week, Estrada defended his beleaguered accord and said efforts to engineer a replacement were in trouble.

"We are throwing the dice and then we advance three or four places. Then you throw again and you go back. This is the exercise on climate," said the Argentine ex-diplomat who steered the historic 1997 conference which yielded Kyoto's framework.

Kyoto binds 37 rich nations to reducing carbon emissions but does not have any targeted commitments for poor economies.

It is a format that critics say is hopelessly out of date today, given that China, India and Brazil are now giant emitters.

Kyoto's first roster of pledges expires at the end of the year. Renewing it is one of several keys to unlocking a wider deal to be completed by 2015 and take effect by 2020.

Kyoto "is an excellent source of experience for any successor treaty," Estrada said.

Environmental activists stage a rally near the US embassy in Manila last December demanding more action to stop climate change. The Kyoto protocol binds 37 rich nations to reducing carbon emissions but does not have any targeted commitments for poor economies.

He added he had "serious concerns" about the 2020 negotiations launched last December in South Africa under the 194-party (UNFCCC).

Senior officials are meeting in Bonn for the first round of talks to follow up the so-called Durban Platform. The 11-day parlay runs until Friday.

"There is very little science in the discussion, mostly political interests or political arguments trying to use things that were decided 20 or 30 years ago," Estrada said.

With climate discussions in a fragile state since the chaotic 2009 Copenhagen Summit, Estrada said political and at home were preventing many countries from tackling climate change with the urgency it needed.

New research recently predicted Earth's temperature rising by as much as five degrees Celsius (9.0 degrees Fahrenheit) from pre-industrial levels on current pledges, instead of the 2 C (3.6 F) limit targeted under the UNFCCC banner.

He pointed the finger at countries that had failed to live up to their Kyoto undertakings.

An activist from British charity Oxfam pretends to eat a piece of coal as a protest during UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa, last year. Raul Estrada has "serious concerns" about the 2020 negotiations launched last December in South Africa.

"I'm frustrated by those governments with whom we adopted the protocol unanimously in Kyoto, not by consensus but unanimously, and later didn't ratify it like the USA or, having ratified the protocol, now they don't comply with it, like Canada and Italy," said Estrada.

Kyoto, which came into force in 2005, envisioned a five-percent reduction of warming gas emissions by rich countries by 2012 from 1990 levels.

Globally, though, emissions have leapt to ever greater heights, driven especially by emerging giants which are burning coal to power their growth.

The United States signed but did not ratify the accord, while Russia and Japan have said they did not intend to sign up after Kyoto expires this year.

Canada has become the only country to withdraw from the , and recently said it would not achieve the target of reducing emissions by 17 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels.

Estrada said the new 2020 pact must include emission targets not only for countries but for industrial sectors, too -- "the amount of carbon you are going to emit by ton of iron or steel or 1,000 megawatts or something like that."

Explore further: Conservation scientists asking wrong questions on climate change impacts on wildlife

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

UN: Canada still obliged to fight climate change

Dec 13, 2011

The UN climate chief on Tuesday voiced regret over Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and said that the country still had legal obligations to work against global warming.

UN climate chief warns on Kyoto Protocol deadline

Apr 04, 2011

Commitments by most developed countries to cut carbon emissions are likely to expire at the end of next year without a new round of legally binding pledges, the UN's climate chief warned Monday.

Russia slams Kyoto Protocol

Dec 16, 2011

Russia supports Canada's decision to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol, says its foreign ministry, reaffirming Friday that Moscow will not take on new commitments.

Recommended for you

Big data confirms climate extremes are here to stay

16 hours ago

In a paper published online today in the journal Scientific Reports, published by Nature, Northeastern researchers Evan Kodra and Auroop Ganguly found that while global temperature is indeed increasing, so too is the variab ...

Peru's carbon quantified: Economic and conservation boon

16 hours ago

Today scientists unveiled the first high-resolution map of the carbon stocks stored on land throughout the entire country of Perú. The new and improved methodology used to make the map marks a sea change ...

How might climate change affect our food supply?

17 hours ago

It's no easy question to answer, but prudence demands that we try. Thus, Microsoft and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have teamed up to tackle "food resilience," one of several themes ...

Groundwater is safe in potential N.Y. fracking area

17 hours ago

Two Cornell hydrologists have completed a thorough groundwater examination of drinking water in a potential hydraulic fracturing area in New York's Southern Tier. They determined that drinking water in potable ...

User comments : 46

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rubberman
3.3 / 5 (22) May 23, 2012
As with most things that spur us to change from the norm, it will take a massive disaster with absolutely no other culprit than Anthropogenic GHG's before the world agrees to do something....sad.

Or maybe a rabid band of gun toting climate scientists...like the ones we frequently hear about.
joefarah
2.6 / 5 (22) May 23, 2012
Somebody still has to prove to me that Carbon causes warming, and not vice versa, as the data seems to indicate.
rubberman
3.4 / 5 (22) May 23, 2012
Somebody still has to prove to me that Carbon causes warming, and not vice versa, as the data seems to indicate.


Would you like the equation for the longwave IR absorbtion rate of CO2, a diagram of how it works in the atmosphere, a simple do at home experiment you can try yourself, a link to one of a million peer reviewed scientific papers written on the subject, geologial evidence of how long a warming period was extended by CO2 after the initial warming forcing had disappeared, CO2 PPM pre and post human input....(another never ending list of information chosen to be ignored by the ignorant)
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (21) May 23, 2012
Rubber, CO2 has few, vary narrow IR absorption bands. Water has many.
The big one you all claim is so important is at 15 microns.
How much energy is absorbed in the 15 micron band at 300K?
Run Planck's equation and let me know.
Russkiycremepuff
2.6 / 5 (16) May 23, 2012
What has Kyoto Protocol done in area of funding research of alternative energies? What has it done for educating the masses in Africa and India and to try to understand what it is in those countries that the citizens are doing that produces so much pollution? Has Mr. Estrada compiled lists that show offending activities that citizens do that adds to the pollution?

In Russian Federation, it is not known if any such lists exist, other than that shows the fossil fuel burning as #1 offense. The expensive Kyoto conferences each year does not help to stem the pollution when each participant also uses much fossil fuels directly or indirectly. These people are very poor role models and they do not seem to understand this. It is like the Obama telling everyone to not spend money in Las Vegas, while he and his family spend a million dollars on family vacations. There is no sense to it.
rubberman
2.8 / 5 (16) May 23, 2012
No need for Planck's equation, water vapour covers way more of the spectrum than CO2, however, this is a good read for anyone who wants to learn how it works without the benefit of a physics class....since you ask.

http://www.aip.or.../co2.htm
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (20) May 23, 2012
No need for Planck's equation? But that will show how much energy is available to to 'trapped' at the magic 15 micron band.
So we agree water vapor absorbs most IR energy and CO2 is quite insignificant.
""No branch of atmospheric physics is more difficult than that dealing with radiation. This is not because we do not know the laws of radiation, but because of the difficulty of applying them to gases." G.C. Simpson(1)"
rubberman
3.1 / 5 (17) May 23, 2012
No need for Planck's equation? But that will show how much energy is available to to 'trapped' at the magic 15 micron band.
So we agree water vapor absorbs most IR energy and CO2 is quite insignificant.
""No branch of atmospheric physics is more difficult than that dealing with radiation. This is not because we do not know the laws of radiation, but because of the difficulty of applying them to gases." G.C. Simpson(1)"


Probably should have read the link.....it's not a mystery, nor is it insignifigant. As a footnote, the entire band from 400-1600 have been observed since 1970 via satelite and the increase in IR absorbtion over the last 42 years has been well documented, and coincides quite clearly with the rise in PPM of CO2.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (15) May 23, 2012
400-1600 ?
What are the units?
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (3) May 23, 2012


nt
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (8) May 23, 2012
cm-1....
It also absorbs just shy 2400 but who cares about that wavelength...right?
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (22) May 23, 2012
Whatever.

As I've said many times,... the worlds countries will NOT submit to global control of their respective economies by a bunch of naive anti-capitalist far left evironmentalists.

The world powers CAN'T even agree on a protocol,.. but people still, astonishingly and naively, believe that social engineering (aka, gov control over energy use) will be a viable solution.

The ONLY way out of this, is to ignore the leftists hysteria propaganda promoting socialism, and to let the markets function at full bore, so that economies are strong enough to produce and to accommodate future alternatives,... with some improved rational clean regulations along the way.

There is very little science in the discussion, mostly political interests or political arguments trying to use things that were decided 20 or 30 years ago,"
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (14) May 23, 2012
cm-1....
It also absorbs just shy 2400 but who cares about that wavelength...right?

How much energy is available to be absorbed by CO2 between 6.25-25 microns?
BB curve at 300K peaks at 10 microns.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (18) May 23, 2012
Or maybe a rabid band of gun toting climate scientists...like the ones we frequently hear about.


There is not enough irrational people to force free rational people to do anything,.. and they would then be regarded as terrorists and would be delt with accordingly.

It wouldn't surprise me at all, though, as that is the tactic of the crazed far left (aka the "occupy wall street" mindless dolts). Environmentalism is a religion to these people, and control and force at the cost of liberty, their preferred choice of gov.

There is NO global institution powerful enough to demand anything of free people on account of AGW speculations. IF the world bought the hysteria, the respective economies would be relatively unimportant. So, the fact is the hysteria and hi-jacking of capitalism failed.

Clearly the conclusion is that is existing capitalistic economies cannot solve AGW then we go down with the ship, rather than be controlled by gov.,.. as nature predicts.
jonnyboy
2.7 / 5 (12) May 23, 2012
No need for Planck's equation? But that will show how much energy is available to to 'trapped' at the magic 15 micron band.
So we agree water vapor absorbs most IR energy and CO2 is quite insignificant.
""No branch of atmospheric physics is more difficult than that dealing with radiation. This is not because we do not know the laws of radiation, but because of the difficulty of applying them to gases." G.C. Simpson(1)"


Probably should have read the link.....it's not a mystery, nor is it insignifigant. As a footnote, the entire band from 400-1600 have been observed since 1970 via satelite and the increase in IR absorbtion over the last 42 years has been well documented, and coincides quite clearly with the rise in PPM of CO2.

So, you agree that the rise in ppm of CO2 is coincidental?
Howhot
2.3 / 5 (9) May 23, 2012
It doesn't matter how much heat is trapped by CO2. For nearly the entire multi-million year exist of earth CO2 in the atmosphere has always been 290ppm(v). The carbon cycle has been very effective at balancing CO2 levels. IR absorption has remained pretty consistent.

Until NOW. Now we have 400ppm(v) atmospheric CO2 levels (not including absorption by the oceans)! It's been shown the heat trapping capabilities of CO2 gas in experiment and in nature; no need to the science there. Just look it up on Wikipedia.

As atmospheric CO2 levels increase, more solar radiation is trapped and as a consequence, global temperatures increase.



ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (13) May 23, 2012
No politics in science?
"
But Keyworth wasn't on stage. Instead, the panel consisted of only Democratscurrent occupant John Holdren, Frank Press (who served President Carter), and John Gibbons and Neal Lane (who both served President Clinton). And while the 90-minute conversation had its moments, one might wonder if Keyworth's absence was related to his politics"
http://news.scien...nce.html
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (16) May 23, 2012
It doesn't matter how much heat is trapped by CO2.

Well that's a relief. Now we can breath and start burning more coal.

And CO2 levels HAVE been higher, MUCH higher in the past.
Howhot
2.8 / 5 (11) May 23, 2012
And CO2 levels HAVE been higher, MUCH higher in the past.

When? Where humans even a species then?
NotParker
2.6 / 5 (15) May 23, 2012
It doesn't matter how much heat is trapped by CO2. For nearly the entire multi-million year exist of earth CO2 in the atmosphere has always been 290ppm(v).


We live in the Holocene, a short break in the current ice age.

The Eemian was the previous break in the ice age, about 130,000 years ago. It was so warm: " The Hippopotamus was distributed as far north as the rivers Rhine and Thames."

The Eemian started out at 190ppm CO2, as it warmed because of the Milankovich orbital changes, CO2 followed temperature up to 290ppm.

Then the Milankovich cycle progressed and it cooled and CO2 dropped back down to 190ppm.

Then ice age conditions returned.

http://www.ferdin...ian.html

"Sea level at peak was probably 4 to 6m (13 to 20 feet) higher than today (references in Overpeck et al., 2006), with much of this extra water coming from Greenland but some likely to have come from Antarctica."
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (15) May 24, 2012
It doesn't matter how much heat is trapped by CO2. For nearly the entire multi-million year exist of earth CO2 in the atmosphere has always been 290ppm(v). The carbon cycle has been very effective at balancing CO2 levels. IR absorption has remained pretty consistent.


This is non-sense. They do not have enough data make to such a statement. That is to say, they do not have the resolution in the data, down to sub-century time frames. Such resolution in the data would be required to see such an increase in such a short time period to begin with, and further to determine how quickly the earth made use of that extra amount.

It could have increased rapidly many times in the past and then the earth in turn responded naturally to rebalance the levels. Their data is way too smeared out in time to see anything meaningful on sub-century scales. I don't believe that man has a handle on global climate with the accuracy that is claimed, down to a few degrees per century.
rubberman
3 / 5 (10) May 24, 2012

So, you agree that the rise in ppm of CO2 is coincidental?


Coincidental with what? It is a direct result of the dawning of the industrial age. Unless you can point to a natural mechanism that has sprung into existence in the last 100 years that wasn't around for the million before it.
rubberman
3 / 5 (12) May 24, 2012
cm-1....
It also absorbs just shy 2400 but who cares about that wavelength...right?

How much energy is available to be absorbed by CO2 between 6.25-25 microns?
BB curve at 300K peaks at 10 microns.


Are you just googling equations and then asking random questions or are you trying to make a point?

"The greenhouse effect doesn't work by CO2 molecules absorbing radiation and reemitting it like some sort of reflector. If that were the mechanism, the air would NEVER warm. The extra energy absorbed is translated into vibrational or momentum when the molecule of CO2 bumps into other molecules.That extra energy is heat." Beren

No need to re-prove a proven theory. If it was wrong it would have been falsified.

"Clearly the conclusion is that is existing capitalistic economies cannot solve AGW then we go down with the ship, rather than be controlled by gov.,.. as nature predicts."
-Smartest thing Nou ever said
reportquote
Noumenon
2 / 5 (16) May 24, 2012
"Clearly the conclusion is that [IF] existing capitalistic economies cannot solve AGW then we go down with the ship, rather than be controlled by gov.,.. as nature predicts."

-Smartest thing Nou ever said


There are two contingencies in that statement,... IF cataclysmic AGW is anything real other than wild speculation,.. and two (as I meant to write above),..IF existing capitalistic economies cannot resolve the issue.

Obviously, the market will have to adopt what ever (currently non-existent) alternatives,.. so it is clear the free market will be the arbiter in this.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (18) May 24, 2012
,...What you should have taken from the comment was that free people are not going to submit to massive social engineering over what amounts to speculation. This, even you can verify by observing current world affairs; i.e. the richest countries are more concerned about their economies than the hysteria over cataclysmic AGW.. That is a fact, that keeps the naive bed-wetters up at night.
rubberman
3.1 / 5 (10) May 24, 2012
"What you should have taken from the comment was that free people are not going to submit to massive social engineering over what amounts to speculation."
I pretty much said that to open this string Nou. Global warming will not be universally cataclysmic, only from the point of view of those affected in the harshest way. If projections are correct, by the end of the century this will be a higher percentage of the world population than the unaffected. If projections are wrong, then your naive bed wetters will be able to sleep a little better.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (16) May 24, 2012
Global warming will not be universally cataclysmic,

Really?
That is not what AGWites assert.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (13) May 24, 2012
The greenhouse effect doesn't work by CO2 molecules absorbing radiation and reemitting it like some sort of reflector.

Molecules absorb IR photos that are tuned to the molecule in question, and then vibrate in various ways dissipating that energy.
That energy is defined by the absorption band, the number of CO2 molecules available and the in-band photon flux.
All molecules 'vibrate' based upon their temperature.
rubberman
3.1 / 5 (11) May 24, 2012
Global warming will not be universally cataclysmic,

Really?
That is not what AGWites assert.


I believe in AGW, I made the statement. Clearly we must not all believe in a global cataclysm as a result of warming...the reactions of the hardest hit nations, should the projections be accurate, will determine what happens to the rest of us.
Excellent rewording of my post on the CO2 Ir absorbtion!
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (14) May 24, 2012
Rubber, how MUCH energy is 'trapped' by CO2 at 15 microns, the only significant IR absorption band for CO2?
For this you need Planck's equation.
rubberman
3.3 / 5 (7) May 24, 2012
Rubber, how MUCH energy is 'trapped' by CO2 at 15 microns, the only significant IR absorption band for CO2?
For this you need Planck's equation.


Seriously....
What is the Photon energy in joules you want me to calulate for?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (14) May 24, 2012
Rubber, how MUCH energy is 'trapped' by CO2 at 15 microns, the only significant IR absorption band for CO2?
For this you need Planck's equation.


Seriously....
What is the Photon energy in joules you want me to calulate for?

The energy trapped by CO2 at 15 microns.
rubberman
3 / 5 (6) May 24, 2012
Do you understand Plancks constant? In order to calculate the energy "trapped" I require the amount energy of emitted which there is to trap.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (13) May 24, 2012
Do you understand Plancks constant? In order to calculate the energy "trapped" I require the amount energy of emitted which there is to trap.

Do you know Planck's EQUATION?
http://astrowww.p...atm2.pdf
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) May 24, 2012
If you want an idea of where the IR absorption bands are in the atm, look here:
http://www.raythe...hart.pdf
Shelgeyr
3 / 5 (12) May 24, 2012
Kyoto Protocol architect 'frustrated' by climate dialogue

Good!

May his frustration increase and have no end except in utter defeat or in an epiphany realizing how profoundly wrong he has been.
gregor1
2.8 / 5 (11) May 25, 2012
"while the pace of warming dangerously speeds up, "
As long as Estrada continues to lie like this he will get nowhere. How stupid does he think we all are?
NotParker
2.8 / 5 (11) May 25, 2012
"New research recently predicted Earth's temperature rising by as much as five degrees Celsius"

Summers in Central England are colder.

The 2nd warmest summer was 1826. It took 150 years to beat that by .2C in 1976, and summers have been cooling ever since.

http://sunshineho...-decade/

If you don't believe me:

"The UK mean temperature for summer was 13.7 °C, which is 0.4 °C below average. The mean temperature was near average during June, 0.7 °C below average during July and 0.6 °C below in August."

http://www.metoff...mer.html
runrig
2.3 / 5 (6) May 26, 2012
"New research recently predicted Earth's temperature rising by as much as five degrees Celsius"

Summers in Central England are colder.

The 2nd warmest summer was 1826. It took 150 years to beat that by .2C in 1976, and summers have been cooling ever since.

http://sunshineho...-decade/


Look sunshine the clue is in the word ..... GLOBAL. Got it? Are you thick or getting paid for this?? Since when is the CET record a proxy for the whole planet?

You really must think you're the only sane inhabitant in the asylum.
vega12
2 / 5 (4) May 27, 2012
It's amazing watching so many people who pretend to be experts on a topic dig trenches and start bickering without end.
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (9) May 27, 2012
"New research recently predicted Earth's temperature rising by as much as five degrees Celsius"

Summers in Central England are colder.

The 2nd warmest summer was 1826. It took 150 years to beat that by .2C in 1976, and summers have been cooling ever since.

http://sunshineho...-decade/


Look sunshine the clue is in the word ..... GLOBAL. Got it? Are you thick or getting paid for this?? Since when is the CET record a proxy for the whole planet?


If the warming is "GLOBAL" it should show up as something special in the ONLY thermometer record that is 350 years old.

HADCET demolishes the false claim of "unprecedented warming".

The claim of "unprecedented warming" is based on the Hockey Stick which is based on trees acting as proxies for thermometers.

ACTUAL THERMOMETERS demolish the claim of warming being "unprecedented".
gregor1
2.1 / 5 (7) May 27, 2012
Here's a summary that pehaps Estrada should read http://www.nal-js...tion.pdf
Feldagast
1 / 5 (3) May 28, 2012
I believe in global warming, I just dont think man can do a darn thing about it or is causing it.
Oysteroid
1.8 / 5 (5) May 28, 2012
Of course he would be worried. 15 years from Kyoto doomsday predictions and the world is still around, coastal cities are not flooded, glaciers moving back and forth as is their habit... Grrr, and worst of all, those nasty rich countries refuse to part with more billions on his demand!
Howhot
1 / 5 (1) May 30, 2012
The problem with Kyoto was and is, governments need to control the polluters and the polluters are wealth creators. The protocol isn't bad, nor is the CO2 exchange. Unfortunately it's countries like ours (the USA) and the big Dragon (China) that can not agree to a cap (as in the CAP-N-TRADE). China won't cap so it can "catch-up" development wise. The US won't cap out of industrial decline concerns.

As global warming continues to effect farmlands and food sources, eventually Cap-n-trade will become the international norm.
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2012
The problem with Kyoto was and is, governments need to control the polluters and the polluters are wealth creators. The protocol isn't bad, nor is the CO2 exchange. Unfortunately it's countries like ours (the USA) and the big Dragon (China) that can not agree to a cap (as in the CAP-N-TRADE). China won't cap so it can "catch-up" development wise. The US won't cap out of industrial decline concerns.

As global warming continues to effect farmlands and food sources, eventually Cap-n-trade will become the international norm.


Biofuels and environmentalists are the biggest threat to food supplies.